The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle an absconding accused to quash an FIR, even where procedural irregularities are alleged. The judgment underscores that evasion of judicial process and failure to cooperate with investigation are decisive factors that override claims of parity or procedural lapse.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
FIR No. 100 dated 09.06.2019 was registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 379, 411, and 34 IPC (now corresponding Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNS) against multiple accused, including the petitioner Anjeev Singh alias Jeeva. The FIR stemmed from a tip-off by a special informer alleging that the accused, including the petitioner, were engaged in the theft and resale of motorcycles and were then en route to Village Galib Kalan on stolen vehicles. A blockade was set up at Mutt Chownk, Galib Kalan, leading to the registration of the case.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was named as one of the accused alongside Satwinder Singh alias Satta, Jagjit Singh alias Jagga, and others.
- The petitioner initially appeared before the trial court regularly after the FIR was registered.
- On 05.08.2024, the petitioner failed to appear in court despite notice.
- Notices were issued for 07.11.2024, but the petitioner did not respond.
- Non-bailable warrants (NBWs) were issued, but were not served upon him.
- On 24.03.2025, the petitioner and Jagjit Singh were declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 CrPC (now Section 84 BNS), without the court recording satisfaction that the petitioner intentionally evaded service.
- Satwinder Singh alias Satta, the main accused, faced trial and was acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, on 02.02.2026.
- The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 52 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of the FIR and the proclamation order dated 24.03.2025.
Procedural History
- 09.06.2019: FIR No. 100 registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon.
- 05.08.2024: Petitioner failed to appear before trial court.
- 07.11.2024: Notice issued for appearance; petitioner did not respond.
- 24.03.2025: Petitioner declared a proclaimed offender by the trial court.
- 02.02.2026: Co-accused Satwinder Singh acquitted by the trial court.
- 23.03.2026: Present petition decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that his non-appearance was due to miscommunication and that the declaration as a proclaimed offender was procedurally defective under Section 82 CrPC (Section 84 BNS). He argued that since the main accused was acquitted, the entire case against him collapsed, and the FIR should be quashed.
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the petition, relying on binding precedents that an absconding accused cannot benefit from the acquittal of co-accused, particularly when he has evaded the judicial process.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of FIR No. 100 dated 09.06.2019
- Quashing of the order dated 24.03.2025 declaring him a proclaimed offender
- Cancellation of all consequential proceedings
The Legal Issue
Can the FIR against an absconding accused be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely because a co-accused has been acquitted, when the accused has failed to appear before the court, evaded service of notices, and been declared a proclaimed offender?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab (2011) to argue that when the main accused is acquitted, the case against other accused, especially those who were not actively involved, must collapse. He contended that his non-appearance was inadvertent and that the declaration as a proclaimed offender was invalid for lack of satisfaction under Section 82 CrPC. He asserted that continuing proceedings against him would be an abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State relied on Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026 INSC 157), T. Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006) and Deepak Oram v. State of Orissa (2024) to argue that the acquittal of a co-accused does not bind the trial against an absconding accused. The prosecution is not required to adduce evidence against an absconding accused during the trial of others. The petitioner’s conduct - failing to appear, ignoring notices, and evading service - disentitles him from invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the legal position established by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the interplay between acquittal of co-accused and the rights of absconding accused. It emphasized that the principle of parity does not apply when one accused has deliberately absconded.
"In a trial against the co-accused the prosecution is not called upon, nor is it expected to adduce evidence against the absconding co-accused. The fact that the testimony of a witness was not accepted or acted upon in the trial against the co-accused is no reason to assume that he shall not tender incriminating evidence or that his evidence will not be accepted in such later trial."
The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared regularly until 05.08.2024, and then disappeared without justification. The issuance of NBWs and the subsequent proclamation were not mere procedural lapses but consequences of his own conduct. The Court rejected the argument that the proclamation order was invalid due to lack of recorded satisfaction, observing that the petitioner’s evasion was evident from his prolonged absence and failure to respond to multiple notices.
The Court distinguished Sudo Mandal as being per incuriam, having been decided without reference to the binding precedents in Moosa and Balmukund Singh Gautam. It held that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Balmukund Singh Gautam explicitly denied anticipatory bail to an absconding accused even after co-accused acquittal, reinforcing that the conduct of the accused is paramount.
The Court further cited T. Moosa to affirm that judgments of acquittal of co-accused are not admissible under Sections 40 - 44 of the Evidence Act to bar a subsequent trial. The trial court must independently evaluate evidence against each accused, and the absence of one does not negate the possibility of guilt.
The Court concluded that invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in such circumstances would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system, encourage evasion of process, and set a dangerous precedent.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused does not entitle the petitioner to quash the FIR or the proclamation order. The proceedings against the petitioner shall continue. No monetary relief or direction was granted as the relief sought was quashing, which was denied.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Acquittal of Co-Accused Is Not a Ground for Quashing
- Practitioners must not rely on co-accused acquittals to seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC if the accused is absconding.
- The prosecution is under no obligation to prove the case against an absconding accused during the trial of others.
- Evidence rejected against one accused may still be admissible and credible against another who evaded trial.
Conduct of the Accused Overrides Procedural Defects
- Failure to appear, ignoring notices, and evading service disqualify an accused from claiming the benefit of inherent jurisdiction.
- Courts will not entertain petitions under Section 482 CrPC from those who have made a mockery of judicial process.
- Proclamation orders will not be invalidated merely on technical grounds if the accused’s conduct demonstrates intentional evasion.
Judicial Precedents Now Form a Unified Doctrine
- Balmukund Singh Gautam, T. Moosa, and Deepak Oram collectively establish a binding principle across Indian High Courts.
- Any judgment relying on Sudo Mandal or similar precedents must now be reconsidered in light of these authoritative rulings.
- Applications for discharge or quashing based on co-accused acquittal must now be accompanied by compelling evidence of innocence, not just procedural complaints.
